The Thunder has twice outplayed the Pacers with only one win to show for it. Basketball can be like that, especially when Tyrese Haliburton is on the other team.
What have we learned from these NBA Finals? What’s in store for Game 3?
It’s time for another staff roundtable as the series heads to Indianapolis. Our crew at The Oklahoman will be there to cover it.
What was your NBA Finals series prediction? What’s your adjusted pick?
Joel Lorenzi: I had Thunder in six. That hasn’t changed. I suggested before it began that this series would provide room — not like the Pacers need much as is — for Tyrese Haliburton to add at least another signature moment. Check. The next Indiana win, if it should happen, feels likely to come by variance. A Pascal Siakam performance and the Pacers torching the nets in Gainbridge Fieldhouse. If Indiana is gonna win anywhere, it has to be there. The best thing the Pacers could’ve done was steal a game in Oklahoma City, waving the wand for their late-game magic to keep the Thunder on its toes. The worst thing they could’ve done was do it in the fashion they did, forcing OKC to remember its own mortality. Indiana shouldn’t get the chance to creep back that way again.
Joe Mussatto: I said Thunder in five, and you know what, I’m going to double down. The Thunder has controlled both games and should be heading to Indianapolis up 2-0. It’s a dangerous game I’m playing, discounting the Pacers, but the Thunder is that much better. I’ve seen nothing through two games to change my mind about that. On the other hand, the Thunder hasn’t been nearly as sharp on the road as it’s been at home these playoffs. OKC is 9-2 at home with a 21.6 net rating — outscoring opponents by 21.6 points per 100 possessions. OKC is 4-3 on the road with a minus-6.2 net rating. I admit the most likely outcome is a split in Indianapolis, but I’ll stick with my original prediction.
Jenni Carlson: I picked the Thunder in five, and I’m sticking with it. Yes, sweeping these next two games in Indianapolis won’t be easy, but think about the first two games. Even though the Pacers got a split, the Thunder dominated both games. It only trailed in Game 1 for 0.3 seconds and never trailed after the first quarter of Game 2. And the Thunder hasn’t needed super-human performances. It is just that much better than the Pacers. Keep doing what it did in Game 2, and Oklahoma City wins on its home court next Monday.
Justin Martinez: I’m sticking with my original pick of OKC in six games. The Thunder has shown that it can slow down Tyrese Haliburton, while the Pacers haven’t shown that they can slow down Shai Gilgeous-Alexander. OKC has clearly been the better team, and I don’t blame anyone who thinks it’ll win this series in five games. But sometimes you just have to throw logic to the side. Indiana has found ways to win games it has no business winning this postseason, and I think it’ll push this series to six before OKC closes it out.
There’s been a lot of talk, most of it negative, about the broadcast presentation. What about the atmosphere in the arena? Has it felt like the NBA Finals?
Jenni Carlson: I guess I don’t really get caught up in what is or isn’t on the court because, until it became a topic on social media, I hadn’t even thought about the fact that the Larry O’Brien Trophy wasn’t on the court. Or that the Finals logo is on the back of the jerseys instead of the front. But maybe that’s because the feel at Paycom Center is so hyped during the playoffs. It’s been spectacular since the postseason began, and it’s only ramped up during the Finals. So, has it felt like the Finals in the arena? Absolutely. And I’m guessing it’ll feel that way at Gainbridge Fieldhouse, too.
Justin Martinez: I do wish the court looked better. If the NBA can go all-out for play-in tournament court designs that nobody asked for, why can’t it put more effort into a Finals court design that seemingly everyone is asking for? Aside from that, I have no complaints about the in-person experience. OKC’s fans created an electric environment, and I’m sure Indiana’s fans will do the same during these next two games.
Joel Lorenzi: It’s become difficult to discern these Finals crowds from the playoff crowds that’ve drowned the Paycom Center for weeks. We’ve all lost our hearing. That much hasn’t changed. With that being said, I haven’t felt like I’ve watched two NBA Finals games. That has nothing to do with the on-court product. It’s not because I’m watching Oklahoma City and Indiana; it’s certainly not the fault of either Shai Gilgeous-Alexander or Haliburton; it’s not because of Zach Zarba or Rob Clay or Druski. As trivial as it might seem, a large part of what feels missing is the on-court decals. The most obvious declaration that you, the viewer, are watching the NBA Finals and nothing less. The Thunder and Pacers play two of the most unwavering styles in the NBA. The performances they’ve dealt in Games 1 and 2 are ones you’ve seen at least a dozen times this year. The on-court product won’t change based on the magnitude of this series. So why won’t the league play it up accordingly, leaning into the nostalgia to give us some indication that these are the Finals besides the fact that the games are being played in June? Revive that feeling, NBA. Give the streets what they want. It’s not just Twitter or X or whatever this time around.
Joe Mussatto: The broadcast, from what I’ve seen, has been a mess. Why can’t we just have an “NBA Finals” decal in that wonderful script on the actual court rather than messing with fuzzy, TV-only projections? As for the in-arena atmosphere, it’s been unreal. Game 2 on Sunday night might have been the loudest sporting event I’ve ever attended. Louder than Allen Fieldhouse, louder than any SEC football stadium. A reporter from Brazil said it’s the closest thing that compares to a South American soccer atmosphere. That’s about the best compliment you can get. Ball’s in your court, Pacers fans.
We’ll leave this one open-ended. What have you learned in the NBA Finals through two games?
Joe Mussatto: Spoiler alert: Shai Gilgeous-Alexander is good. No, it didn’t take me this long to realize as much, but him playing like this in the NBA Finals is the next step in cementing himself among the all-time greats. He’d become the 15th player to win MVP and the NBA title in the same season. The others: Bob Cousy, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Willis Reed, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Moses Malone, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O’Neal, Tim Duncan, LeBron James and Stephen Curry. All of those guys made the NBA’s top-75, 75th anniversary team. Gilgeous-Alexander could join that list before his 27th birthday.
Jenni Carlson: Anyone who isn’t watching these Finals because it’s a matchup of small-market teams isn’t a fan of great basketball. Listen, I don’t know what the final viewership numbers will say, and frankly, I don’t care all that much. That’s for NBA and ABC bean counters to mull over. All I know is that these two teams are extremely entertaining. They have elite players. They lock in on both ends of the court. They play hard and compete harder. It’s not just entertaining. It’s high-level basketball. Watch. Don’t watch. Doesn’t matter to me, but if you don’t, the excuse isn’t the size of the cities.
Joel Lorenzi: Two things. 1) That even the Thunder, a fortress of a defense and as even-keeled of a group, could be victims of the Pacers’ late-game devilry. 2) That OKC might not need to depend as much on points off turnovers as I previously thought. The realization in Game 1 that the Thunder could slip the way that the Bucks, Cavaliers and Knicks all could was sour. OKC has lost just twice at home in these playoffs, both games that saw history rewritten with a single play. That stings. That swings series. And it feels like the exact kind of reminder that this pristine, storybook season needed. As far as turnovers and points off of them — at the top of the list of reasons why teams will revisit this season and remember the Thunder like Freddy Krueger — Oklahoma City hasn’t won games on that front. Game 1 was spent showing the Pacers that it merely could turn them over if they so pleased, though that was where the lesson ended, with just 11 points off of 24 turnovers. And in Game 2, OKC had just two fewer turnovers than Indy while scoring three fewer points off turnovers. The Thunder is going the opposite direction, people. And yet, the Thunder won with its MVP surveying the floor. With its two younger co-stars raising the floor. With a valiant bench effort. By winning the glass. By denying Indiana’s typical efficiency. Who needs turnovers, or at least a suffocating amount of them, when you win in this many ways?
Justin Martinez: It’s not a surprising development, but we’ve learned that Shai Gilgeous-Alexander is ready for this moment. He scored a combined 72 points in the first two games. That’s the most points ever by a player in his first two career NBA Finals games, surpassing Allen Iverson (71 points) in 2001. Gilgeous-Alexander is rolling, and I don’t expect that to change throughout the rest of this series against an Indiana team that simply doesn’t have the personnel to stop him.
Sign up for the Thunder Sports Minute newsletter to access more NBA coverage.